Apman v. City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-04226
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Apman v. City of New York, Judge Furman set discovery and pretrial deadlines without deciding the claims.
Keith Apman, the City of New York, and their counsel are affected by the scheduling, discovery, settlement, motion, and pretrial requirements.
What happened
Apman v. City of New York is at the case-management stage. The parties submitted a plan under the federal rule governing their initial planning conference, and the court canceled the September 27, 2023 conference.
The order set October 27, 2023, as the deadline for motions to amend the pleadings or add parties and for initial document requests and certain interrogatories. Fact discovery must finish by January 25, 2024. The parties estimated that trial would last three to four days, and the next pretrial conference was scheduled for January 31, 2024.
Judge Jesse Furman entered the scheduling order on September 15, 2023. The order establishes procedures and deadlines for discovery, settlement discussions, motions, and trial preparation; it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Apman v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-04226
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 15, 2023
Nature of the order
The court entered a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order based on the parties’ submission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(3). This is a scheduling and case-management order, not a decision on the merits of the claims.
Deadlines and discovery
The deadline for any motion to amend the pleadings or add parties is October 27, 2023. The order also sets October 27, 2023, as the deadline for initial requests for production of documents and certain interrogatories. Fact discovery must be completed by January 25, 2024. The parties must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Southern District of New York’s local rules, and the court’s individual rules.
The order explains procedures for depositions, requests to admit, contention interrogatories, expert discovery if applicable, and discovery disputes. Before bringing a discovery dispute to the court, the parties must meet and confer in person or by telephone. If that effort fails, the party may file a letter-motion of no more than three pages requesting an informal conference. Counsel must also meet in person for at least one hour to discuss settlement within fourteen days after fact discovery closes.
Motions and trial preparation
Absent good cause, the court will not have summary-judgment practice in a non-jury case. Any applicable summary-judgment motion or motion to exclude expert testimony must be filed within thirty days after the later of the close of fact discovery or expert discovery. The parties must submit a proposed joint pretrial order within thirty days after discovery closes, or within thirty days after a decision on a dispositive motion if one is filed. The parties estimated a trial length of three to four days. The order does not clearly show the selected jury-trial option in the provided text.
Other scheduling rulings
The parties were directed to file a joint letter by December 18, 2023, stating whether they wanted a referral to the assigned magistrate judge or the court’s mediation program for settlement purposes. The next pretrial conference was scheduled for January 31, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., presumptively by telephone. The order states that its deadlines may be changed only by further court order for good cause, subject to the specified exception for certain interim discovery deadlines. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 12.
Disposition and effect
Judge Furman ordered the parties to follow the stated case-management schedule. The court did not grant or deny a merits motion, resolve liability, or determine the validity of any claim or defense. The order therefore affects the parties’ litigation schedule and counsel’s discovery and pretrial obligations while the case proceeds.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.